ACS National Convention
June 13 - 15, 2013
Washington D.C.
Register Now!

Login:

National Voter Registration Act

March 19, 2013
Protecting Voting Rights is not ‘Crazy’
Guest Post
by Spencer Overton, a Professor of Law at The George Washington University Law School and a Senior Fellow at Demos.This piece is crossposted at The Huffington Post.

I attended yesterday’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in the Arizona voter registration case. The argument went well generally, but Justice Alito suggested the Justices would create a “crazy” double standard by requiring that Arizona election officials accept the federal registration form.

Alito’s concerns are unwarranted. Arizona chose to create two standards when it chose to add special “proof of citizenship” to register.

The National Voter Registration Act requires that all states “accept and use” a single, uniform voter registration form for federal elections (states can also still use their own registration forms).

The Federal Form requires that prospective voters check a box and sign an affirmation that they are U.S. citizens under penalty of perjury.

Arizona, however, adopted a state law requiring “satisfactory proof” of U.S. citizenship to register, such as a birth certificate, U.S. passport, or state driver’s license that shows citizenship. As a result, Arizona rejected over 31,000 registrations that lacked its “proof of citizenship” -- including Federal Forms -- even though Arizona concedes it has no evidence that any of these individuals were non-citizens.

My take is that Arizona must accept all Federal Forms that comply with the citizenship affirmation rules set by Congress. The federal Act was designed to expand participation in federal elections by streamlining the registration process with a simple, uniform Federal Form that prevents states from piling on additional hurdles to register. Indeed, as Justice Sotomayor mentioned, Congress explicitly rejected an amendment that would have allowed states to require “documentary evidence” of U.S. citizenship.

More
Tags:
Election law, Supreme Court, Other courts, Voting rights, Democracy and Voting, Arizona, Arizona v. ITC, Congress, Guest Post, Justice Samuel Alito, National Voter Registration Act, U.S. citizens
November 23, 2011
House Forum Explores Threats to Voting Rights
by Jonathan Arogeti

In fewer than 12 months, millions of Americans nationwide will head to the polls for the 2012 election. With the presidency, 33 Senate seats, all 435 House seats, 11 state governorships, and more than 80 percent of state legislature seats on the ballot, some are considering it to be the among the “most important election[s].”

But a spate of new restrictive state voting laws threatens to limit voter participation during this election, as documented by a new report from the Brennan Center for Justice. During a forum convened by leading Democratic congressmen, several prominent voting rights experts lamented the abrupt “shift” in momentum away from expanding the franchise. Laws that require photo identification or proof of citizenship, reduce registration opportunities and limit early voting could “make it significantly harder for more than five million eligible voters” to cast ballots in 14 states, the report estimates. And these estimates do not even take into account the potential consequences of proposed measures states that have not yet passed in at least 24 other. Click here for video of the forum.

“These new laws threaten to silence the voices of those least heard and rarely listened to in this country -- the poor, the elderly, racial and ethnic minorities, the young and the differently abled. Now is the time to act,” said League of Women Voters President Elisabeth MacNamara during the forum.

This month has also seen calls by leading Democratic congressmen for a hearing in the House on new state restrictions on voting, and a letter signed by more than 200 House members urges all 50 state secretaries of state to oppose these laws.

More
Tags:
Election law, Redistricting, Voting rights, Democracy and Voting, Brennan Center, Estelle Rogers, John Conyers, National Voter Registration Act
December 1, 2009
Ohio Officials Settle Lawsuit Over Voter Registration
Ohio state officials have agreed to settle a lawsuit that will require greater efforts by government officials to register low-income voters. The lawsuit brought by the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under the Law and other public interest groups was based on Sec. 7 of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), which requires social services and other government agencies to register voters. In their lawsuit, Harkless v. Brunner, the Lawyers' Committee and the other groups argued that the Ohio Department of Jobs and Family Services (DJFS) offices were registering only a tiny percentage of their clients and that then-Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell was not taking action to adhere to Section 7. The settlement filed in federal court in Cleveland requires state officials to ensure that low-income people are given the chance to vote. A statement from the Lawyers' Committee says the settlement will require the DJFS to "integrate voter registration directly into the benefits application and recertification process, as well as institute broad-ranging training, reporting and oversight procedures."
In an Issue Brief recently released by ACS, Estelle Rogers analyzes the history of the NVRA, and maintains that state and federal officials have not done enough to enforce primary sections of the law, such as Section 7. Rogers, the consulting attorney at Project Vote, writes that state election officials must do more to uphold "their responsibilities under the NVRA." Rogers' Issue Brief, "The National Voter Registration Act: Fifteen Years On," is available here.

More
Tags:
Voting rights, Democracy and Voting, Harkless v. Brunner, Lawyers' Committee, National Voter Registration Act
November 20, 2009
Voter Registration Law Lacking Lawmakers’ Leadership
The National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) has sputtered in removing hurdles to voter registration and the Obama administration and state election officials must renew their efforts to bolster the law, writes Estelle Rogers in an Issue Brief released by ACS.
Congress passed the NVRA, in part, to increase voter registration and to prod government to encourage voting. When it was enacted, the NVRA was "heralded as a landmark law that would usher in a new era of universal or nearly universal, enfranchisement and political participation," Rogers states in "The National Voter Registration Act: Fifteen Years On."

But Rogers, the consulting attorney at Project Vote, maintains that while the law has produced some successes, it is hobbled by poor implementation and execution of some its key provisions.

Rogers writes:

Without question, the least successful provision of the NVRA is the requirement that social service agencies and offices serving the disabled provide voter registration services similarly to motor vehicle offices. While this requirement was a promising way of reaching out to citizens who didn't interact with DMVs, such as those too impoverished to drive or own cars, the reality has not measured up to the promise. This disappointing track record is due to widespread non-compliance with the mandates of Section 7 and a failure of enforcement by the Department of Justice, particularly in recent years, not with any lack of clarity in the statute itself.

Section 8 of the NVRA states, "Each state shall insure that any eligible applicant is registered to vote ... and conduct a general program that makes a reasonable effort to remove the names of ineligible voters." But Rogers, says that provision has also been hampered by officials.

"The registration administration provisions of Section 8 are, for the most part, drafted clearly but nevertheless have been widely ignored," she writes. "Significantly increased awareness and enforcement of these provisions is necessary to fulfill the potential of Section 8."

Federal and state officials' leadership is needed to improve the NVRA, Rogers maintains. The Justice Department, in particular, must "provide much needed guidance and enforcement of sections 7 and 8." And state election officials, she writes, must aggressively approach "their responsibilities under the NVRA." For example, Rogers says that states' top election officials should ensure that election administrators "do not impose unreasonable restrictions on registration drives, and that motor vehicle, disability, and social service agencies consistently fulfill their duties under NVRA."

Download a pdf version of Rogers' Issue Brief here and for additional analysis of the law, see her ACS guest blog here.

More
Tags:
Voting rights, Democracy and Voting, Estelle Rogers, National Voter Registration Act, NVRA, Project Vote
July 29, 2009
Voter Registration Made Simple?
Guest Post
By Estelle Rogers, Consulting Attorney, ProjectVote

The National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) has been a disappointment. When the statute was passed in 1993, the civil rights community hailed it as the capstone of the "voting rights revolution" begun by the Voting Rights Act of 1965. In a new report from Project Vote, "The National Voter Registration Act at Fifteen," voting rights attorney Estelle Rogers hones in on several of the most important provisions of the NVRA and finds their impact far less dramatic than expected. Despite the promise of the NVRA, voter registration problems were frequently cited as THE ISSUE marring the 2008 election, just as hanging chads were in 2000 and long lines in 2004.

The NVRA was enacted in response to the shocking statistic that 44 percent of the eligible electorate did not vote in the 1992 presidential election. The legislation's sponsors believed that making it easier to register would eliminate one major barrier to low participation in the future. The primary means Congress chose to increase the number of registered voters was to mandate that registration be offered at places not generally used for that purpose, such as motor vehicle offices and public assistance and disability agencies. Actually, "motor voter" was the original concept. Other agencies were only added later, at the urging of voting rights advocates, who recognized that a broad swath of the American public-particularly low income and minority citizens-does not interact with the DMV at all.
More
Tags:
Election law, Voting rights, Democracy and Voting, Estelle Rogers, Guest Post, National Voter Registration Act, NVRA, Project Vote, Voter Registration